I attempt to answer people's questions as best I can given the time I have.
Utter rubbish, and we can all see it. Everyone else can also see you ignoring my question in this thread, that you have devoted more effort to thinking up non-answers to, like "greed" than it would have taken you to answer properly, or to simply say "I don't know". Admitting you don't know stuff garners far more respect than pretending you know everything but are too busy to answer. Pretending you know everything is part of what makes you look like a faker.
My discussion on dinosaurs clearly stems from Eric Dubay's The Flat Earth Conspiracy. If you had read it, or read my posts, you would know this. The next chapter clearly discusses Giants. Charles Fort noted the connection between these two, the father of free-thinking.
Claiming dinosaurs are the skeletons of humanoid giants is only supported at all by selective evidence. Like how an elephant skull on its own could be mistaken for the skull of a cyclops. When found with its tusks on and the rest of the skeleton attached, it most certainly couldn't be. Dubay's writing hinges entirely on ignoring findings which can't possibly be parts of humanoid giants or any other known creature. And your dumb argument (that it's all a conspiracy) hinges on pretending that random amateurs never find fossils, which is why you are taking such care to avoid my repeated question about it.
I'm sorry, you don't like me using math to support my arguments?
On the contrary, I approve of you using maths to support your arguments. What I don't like is you posting irrelevant mathematics which you know are too complex for the majority of posters to interpret as an alternative to posting an actual counterargument, so you can weasel out of tricky questions. Like this:
Poster - "The earth is not an infinite plane. How can you prove this?"
Davis - "In non-euclidean space then if we integrate X and S then it means that Y has to be less than zero, which means that T/r squared is always less than p*F. That proves it.
Poster - "Duh."
From our point of view, this is a non-falsifiable mathematical proof because we can't tell if it's right or wrong because it's presented in such a complex way, instead of actually
explained. It's no different to the way Jrowe would glibly just reply "aether" when asked to explain any given phenomenon. When pointed out that wasn't an explanation, he'd just say "it's not my fault you don't understand how it explains it".
I notice that on the occasions when you've been challenged to explain what your variables represent, you never answer. This also creates the impression that your equations are made up bollocks.